llortcM_yllort:factoryconnection: Generation_D: sand_in_my_vagoo: With a quote like that I knew it had to be either the IOC or FIFA. Both of those organizations are corrupt on a level US politicians can only dream of.

Done in 1. This was my exact thought as well.

And that's even on a neutral site... combine it with Russia's special brand of graft and it turns into magic hour.

Aren't they hosting the world cup in 2018?

Yep. I can't wait for the Russian government's official spending figures for those projects.

FTA: "Please understand what our responsibilities are and what your responsibilities are," Bach said. "Have the courage to address your disagreements in a peaceful, direct political dialogue and not on the backs of the athletes. People have a very good understanding of what it really means to single out the Olympic Games to make an ostentatious gesture which allegedly costs nothing but produces international headlines."

TRANSLATION: There are great amounts of coin to be made off this event, so don't cockblock the cashflow.

justtray:There was absolutely no point and there were no references to anything to help make his point. I think he hates the IOC for certain reasons, but then takes his hate and points it at this statement:Please understand what our responsibilities are and what your responsibilities are," Bach said. "Have the courage to address your disagreements in a peaceful, direct political dialogue and not on the backs of the athletes. People have a very good understanding of what it really means to single out the Olympic Games to make an ostentatious gesture which allegedly costs nothing but produces international headlines."

On this point, I 100% agree with Bach. Olympics should be a peaceful, nonpolitical competition where athletes display to the world that citizens from everywhere are very much alike despite our politicians and their agenda / propaganda.

This is not to say the IOC isn't corrupt and that human equality is not an issue in many places, Russia and the US included. But the platform for engaging in social and economic politics is on a political stage. The olympics are a platform for diplomacy. And politicians should be thankful for diplomatic displays like the Olympics that allow political communication lines to remain open and mutual rather than combative.

Anyways, the author is wrong and doesn't make his point well.

If you're doing to be a dumbass, at least learn how to read first.

All while they scold, politicians and politics? The truth is this entire enterprise's popularity was built on the back of heated nationalism, political battles and even rivalries formed from outright wars. Jesse Owens in Berlin. USA-Russia hockey. So on and so ...

1. Yes, nationalism is one of the foundations for having a rooting interest for your nation in the olympics. Rooting for your own country is nationalism. Politics and nationalism are not the same thing.2. Bach's response in "scolding the politicians" was implied by Wetzell that a) Bach had a problem with leaders criticizing and then not showing up (provided no quote, but referencing the admittedly passive aggresive shot at Russia). Wetzell takes it as a direct and sole attack on Obama (read:manufactured outrage). Then takes credit for thinking up and referencing non-attending leaders of other "progressive" nations for himself. Because Wetzell deserves interpretive license, I guess. Then he uses Bach's quote for saying b) politicians shouldn't use athletes and the Olympics as their platform for political agenda. If Bach said something otherwise about scolding politicians for their political views, Wetzel didn't include it in the article.On the side - Wetzell's also tying in Russia's politics as the IOC's burden, for some reason. Was it perhaps that Bach answered a question that was asked of him?

If his point, as you show me, oh wise one, (side note: subby like typing-detected) is in the 14th paragraph, then good for him on burying it. I took his meaning from the actual first paragraph, which was to go after Bach as an opportunist for...something? Handouts or something. Whatever he meant, and even if correct, he didn't make his point.And anyways, as I stated earlier, my conclusions:1. Politics have no place in the games. Wetzell says you can't separate them. I say we have to.2. Maybe it's a deadline. Maybe he sucks at writing. I don't care, but Wetzell shows he can write thousands of words and can't really organize a good point.

Nana's Vibrator:Chronomorte: It seems that the writer of that article took offense at something theIOC leader (and Fencing enthusiast) said and vigorously defended theUS and US executive branch from the apparent insult. There mighthave been a story in there under all that opinion and defensiveness,but I'm not sure.

There was absolutely no point and there were no references to anything to help make his point. I think he hates the IOC for certain reasons, but then takes his hate and points it at this statement:Please understand what our responsibilities are and what your responsibilities are," Bach said. "Have the courage to address your disagreements in a peaceful, direct political dialogue and not on the backs of the athletes. People have a very good understanding of what it really means to single out the Olympic Games to make an ostentatious gesture which allegedly costs nothing but produces international headlines."

On this point, I 100% agree with Bach. Olympics should be a peaceful, nonpolitical competition where athletes display to the world that citizens from everywhere are very much alike despite our politicians and their agenda / propaganda.

This is not to say the IOC isn't corrupt and that human equality is not an issue in many places, Russia and the US included. But the platform for engaging in social and economic politics is on a political stage. The olympics are a platform for diplomacy. And politicians should be thankful for diplomatic displays like the Olympics that allow political communication lines to remain open and mutual rather than combative.

Anyways, the author is wrong and doesn't make his point well.

It's not "politics." "Politics" implies two or more (semi) legitimate sides and a (semi) legitimate debate on issues. This is rights.

Maybe, just maybe, using a world stage to shame Russia's horrible treatment of gay people could help turn around what's going on in other parts of the world. Such as a whole bunch of countries in Africa where gays are being killed.

This is a bigger deal than disagreeing with Russia. We have a moral farking duty here, and it's one of those super rare issues where the other side is only evil and that's that.

Similarly, it pisses me off to hear about people who support gay rights but don't think social issues are that big a deal compared to whatever fiscal stance they have. While the world's sick of America on all sorts of geopolitical fronts, we're still pretty liked culturally. We could be making more of a difference just by showing some more public support.

Dafatone:It's not "politics." "Politics" implies two or more (semi) legitimate sides and a (semi) legitimate debate on issues. This is rights.

Maybe, just maybe, using a world stage to shame Russia's horrible treatment of gay people could help turn around what's going on in other parts of the world. Such as a whole bunch of countries in Africa where gays are being killed.

This is a bigger deal than disagreeing with Russia. We have a moral farking duty here, and it's one of those super rare issues where the other side is only evil and that's that.

Similarly, it pisses me off to hear about people who support gay rights but don't think social issues are that big a deal compared to whatever fiscal stance they have. While the world's sick of America on all sorts of geopolitical fronts, we're still pretty liked culturally. We could be making more of a difference just by showing some more public support.

I extracted "politics" from the article. Putting that aside, I'd still agree with Bach that the Olympics and the backs of the olympic athletes should not be used to advance an agenda of any kind. While it's clearly a great opportunity for any statement, it bastardizes the entire intent of the Olympics and makes athletics secondary to something else. Why even send the athletes? Why not just call it a political summit?Again, I'd prefer that the Olympics be a neutral display by athletes of sportsmanship, who through their example show the world that they can set their nations' differences (including tragic and catastrophic judgement) aside. The foundation of the games represents individuals setting a good example of positive interaction despite being set against each other competitively. This foundation can then be extended to the small-minded politicians who often forget their place in representing their people and projecting this good example. This, in turn makes the Olympics a foundation of diplomacy and leads to open dialog which can then lead to difficult conversations about human rights, where you can then reference openly gay athletes contributing positively and peacefully to the games and extend that as an example to society.

/ Yes, probably too idealistic at this point, considering the minutes-long "news" cycle grasping for stories and peripherals to incite volatile interaction and extend it to the internet for anonymous and yet even more volatile interaction.

Nana's Vibrator:Dafatone: It's not "politics." "Politics" implies two or more (semi) legitimate sides and a (semi) legitimate debate on issues. This is rights.

Maybe, just maybe, using a world stage to shame Russia's horrible treatment of gay people could help turn around what's going on in other parts of the world. Such as a whole bunch of countries in Africa where gays are being killed.

This is a bigger deal than disagreeing with Russia. We have a moral farking duty here, and it's one of those super rare issues where the other side is only evil and that's that.

Similarly, it pisses me off to hear about people who support gay rights but don't think social issues are that big a deal compared to whatever fiscal stance they have. While the world's sick of America on all sorts of geopolitical fronts, we're still pretty liked culturally. We could be making more of a difference just by showing some more public support.

I extracted "politics" from the article. Putting that aside, I'd still agree with Bach that the Olympics and the backs of the olympic athletes should not be used to advance an agenda of any kind. While it's clearly a great opportunity for any statement, it bastardizes the entire intent of the Olympics and makes athletics secondary to something else. Why even send the athletes? Why not just call it a political summit?Again, I'd prefer that the Olympics be a neutral display by athletes of sportsmanship, who through their example show the world that they can set their nations' differences (including tragic and catastrophic judgement) aside. The foundation of the games represents individuals setting a good example of positive interaction despite being set against each other competitively. This foundation can then be extended to the small-minded politicians who often forget their place in representing their people and projecting this good example. This, in turn makes the Olympics a foundation of diplomacy and leads to open dialog which can then lead to diffic ...

Keep in mind, the issue at hand is whether or not Obama should be attending the Olympics, and whether or not we should be sending a gay designation of representatives.

It's not like Obama's demanding anything of Sochi or issuing ultimatums or conditions for his attendance. Deliberately not sending gay representatives is about as political as deliberately sending gay ones.

Alpine skiing, particularly downhill, if the camera work is good enough to show what the skiers are really doing, and the announcers have the tools to show differences in tactics for the racers, and if they show enough of the action instead of filler. It doesn' t happen much, sadly. (and candid shots of skiers in the starthouse or getting ready isn't filler. The body language and facial expression of somebody about to do what they're about to do is a sobering part of the event)

Some of the freestyle events are watchable, and there's a local kid from the same tiny Indiana ski area that I ski at in the slopestyle skiing, so I'll watch that.

And I've always said, and will continue to say, that curling is the absolutely most perfect sport for TV watching ever invented. Seriously. Even if you have to force yourself to watch for the first end or two, it becomes totally compelling once you get past the initial hump.

BTW, make sure you look at a schedule in advance so you know when your favorite sports are going to be on. Example: Most of the speedskating will be over by the end of this weekend, I believe. Luge is pretty early in the games, too, as are some of the downhill skiing events. NBC seems to be sticking most of their luge coverage for the "after the late news" time slot, so if you want to catch that, you'll have to stay awake. Women's hockey starts right off the bat, but men's hockey doesn't get going until next Wednesday, I believe. Curling is going to be on NBCSN, one game a night during the week, I believe, as well as some live broadcasts at godawful early in the morning.

Anyway, my top events to watch are luge, bobsled, curling, and hockey. Downhill skiing is in there, too, but isn't at the top of my priority list. Any skating that doesn't have a stick and puck is pointless. Ski jumping is cool, but the only reason to watch that is for the wipeouts, in my opinion. Snowboarding is okay, but as many X-games as there are, I'll watch something I can't see all the time. Cross country and biathlon are about as exciting as watching a marathon, unless it's in a blizzard.

Dafatone:Keep in mind, the issue at hand is whether or not Obama should be attending the Olympics, and whether or not we should be sending a gay designation of representatives.

It's not like Obama's demanding anything of Sochi or issuing ultimatums or conditions for his attendance. Deliberately not sending gay representatives is about as political as deliberately sending gay ones.

Which, as Nana's Vibrator's selective reading also missed, is covered in the article. Bach is making a point against something that does not exist. No poltical stance was made at all against the Olympics. We sent our people, we didn't force them to change their laws or anything.

He says I sound like subby, I say he sounds like Bach, or worse yet, Putin himself. While I'm not subby, I'm definitely not going to white knight the sham the Olympics have become, or pretend to be some idealogical douche.

The facts remain, politics DO have a place in the Olympics, AND next to nothing has been done by the United States to force anything on Russia over them. Complaining about something that isn't even happening, as Bach does in the quoted article, is whiny and pathetic, deserving of ridicule.

justtray:Dafatone: Keep in mind, the issue at hand is whether or not Obama should be attending the Olympics, and whether or not we should be sending a gay designation of representatives.

It's not like Obama's demanding anything of Sochi or issuing ultimatums or conditions for his attendance. Deliberately not sending gay representatives is about as political as deliberately sending gay ones.

Which, as Nana's Vibrator's selective reading also missed, is covered in the article. Bach is making a point against something that does not exist. No poltical stance was made at all against the Olympics. We sent our people, we didn't force them to change their laws or anything.

He says I sound like subby, I say he sounds like Bach, or worse yet, Putin himself. While I'm not subby, I'm definitely not going to white knight the sham the Olympics have become, or pretend to be some idealogical douche.

The facts remain, politics DO have a place in the Olympics, AND next to nothing has been done by the United States to force anything on Russia over them. Complaining about something that isn't even happening, as Bach does in the quoted article, is whiny and pathetic, deserving of ridicule.

Now you're just being obtuse. Politics is forcing a country to do something? The United States purposely selected openly gay former athletes in their delegation, including Billie Jean King, known best for...Winter Tennis? Tell me again that's not political. Tell me Wetzell wasn't wrong for suggesting that something political wasn't...political.Then tell us again what a sham the olympics are, and in the same post discuss how politics you speak of belong in what you consider a sham. Try not to contradict yourself./You'll find that politics is exactly what's wrong.//do you even know what a white knight is?///dumbass to douche. Brilliant.

Nana's Vibrator:justtray: Dafatone: Keep in mind, the issue at hand is whether or not Obama should be attending the Olympics, and whether or not we should be sending a gay designation of representatives.

It's not like Obama's demanding anything of Sochi or issuing ultimatums or conditions for his attendance. Deliberately not sending gay representatives is about as political as deliberately sending gay ones.

Which, as Nana's Vibrator's selective reading also missed, is covered in the article. Bach is making a point against something that does not exist. No poltical stance was made at all against the Olympics. We sent our people, we didn't force them to change their laws or anything.

He says I sound like subby, I say he sounds like Bach, or worse yet, Putin himself. While I'm not subby, I'm definitely not going to white knight the sham the Olympics have become, or pretend to be some idealogical douche.

The facts remain, politics DO have a place in the Olympics, AND next to nothing has been done by the United States to force anything on Russia over them. Complaining about something that isn't even happening, as Bach does in the quoted article, is whiny and pathetic, deserving of ridicule.

Now you're just being obtuse. Politics is forcing a country to do something? The United States purposely selected openly gay former athletes in their delegation, including Billie Jean King, known best for...Winter Tennis? Tell me again that's not political. Tell me Wetzell wasn't wrong for suggesting that something political wasn't...political.Then tell us again what a sham the olympics are, and in the same post discuss how politics you speak of belong in what you consider a sham. Try not to contradict yourself./You'll find that politics is exactly what's wrong.//do you even know what a white knight is?///dumbass to douche. Brilliant.

So the US sending gay delegates is a horrible political act, but Russia saying gays are only allowed at the Olympics if they "stay away from the kids" isn't?

Or, two wrongs don't make a right and it's better to ignore bigotry than send a major US athlete who is gay?

Nana's Vibrator:Now you're just being obtuse. Politics is forcing a country to do something? The United States purposely selected openly gay former athletes in their delegation, including Billie Jean King, known best for...Winter Tennis? Tell me again that's not political. Tell me Wetzell wasn't wrong for suggesting that something political wasn't...political.Then tell us again what a sham the olympics are, and in the same post discuss how politics you speak of belong in what you consider a sham. Try not to contradict yourself./You'll find that politics is exactly what's wrong.//do you even know what a white knight is?///dumbass to douche. Brilliant.

What a weird concept that a gay athlete, who competed before the olympics were even separated into winter and summer, to a competition that touts such heterosexual events as male figure skating or cramming four men into a penis shaped object.

Seriously, just fark off. Your white knighting of bigots is disgusting. Moreso given that their criticism is entirely unfounded.

Sorry you decided to come up with an uninformed opinion without reading the entire article and got called out on it. I suggest you don't double down on it next time.

justtray:Nana's Vibrator: Now you're just being obtuse. Politics is forcing a country to do something? The United States purposely selected openly gay former athletes in their delegation, including Billie Jean King, known best for...Winter Tennis? Tell me again that's not political. Tell me Wetzell wasn't wrong for suggesting that something political wasn't...political.Then tell us again what a sham the olympics are, and in the same post discuss how politics you speak of belong in what you consider a sham. Try not to contradict yourself./You'll find that politics is exactly what's wrong.//do you even know what a white knight is?///dumbass to douche. Brilliant.

What a weird concept that a gay athlete, who competed before the olympics were even separated into winter and summer, to a competition that touts such heterosexual events as male figure skating or cramming four men into a penis shaped object.

Seriously, just fark off. Your white knighting of bigots is disgusting. Moreso given that their criticism is entirely unfounded.

Sorry you decided to come up with an uninformed opinion without reading the entire article and got called out on it. I suggest you don't double down on it next time.

Uh...you neither answered nor did you even address my posts...and now who am I siding with? where did you possibly even interpret...you really are that stupid. congratulations. you interpreted an apolitical viewpoint while I disclaimed the tragic and catastrophic issues and the possible but unapproached IOC coruption into ...bigotry? You are so far beyond stupid it hurts that you can possibly be alive. And I'd be certain it's a miracle that in all your stupidity you are breathing today. Perhaps it started at the abortion clinic, when mom didn't want you, yet you crawled out of that garbage bag, but not before the dumpster fire took out the rest of your twitching twins...but you...oh you... You crawled out of that abortion dumpster fire just in time and made it all the way to fail remedial reading comprehension, occasionally falling down the stairs because paying attention for a few seconds is a problem... Picking yourself up and dusting yourself off to find the helmet your foster dad makes you wear due to the aforementioned stair issue, never once thinking the helmet should go on BEFORE that tumble, day after day...and after all that you got to the computer just in time to respond and be wrong, yet again. Good work, dude. Thumbs up. Hopefully you can tackle bath time or using kleenex one of these days. But let's not try the internet thing anymore. It's not working out for you.